Another 737 catches fire

[Alexx1401]

Honestly, 100ft vertical separation + NVG use. This was a matter of when, not if something like this would happen.

That was the first thing I kept thinking before even watching it. They kept saying the Helicopter was supposed to have a ceiling of 200FT. I kept thinking so they think it would be fine if the jet only missed the chopper by 200FT? WTF? Then I kept thinking what would that feel like to the pilots of that thing when a damn commercial jet passes over them only 200ft above them? Amazing this did not happen before now and will keep some lawyers busy for years.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Dashcam footage of Philly Lear jet crash. Crazy, all those people tearing as$ out of there.

View: https://youtu.be/Y635ctGFNzQ?si=-wLqS4mPMQj7PpfS

 

[Alexx1401]

Dashcam footage of Philly Lear jet crash. Crazy, all those people tearing as$ out of there.

View: https://youtu.be/Y635ctGFNzQ?si=-wLqS4mPMQj7PpfS

There was one great video of some eatery. Shrapnel started flying in and most of the people went for cover. One old guy is sitting there not moving until his hat flies right off his head. That got his attention.

 

[Rkangel]

I don't know about anyone else but I am going to lay off flying for a while...

"This is your captain speaking. If you look to the right of the aircraft you will see the beautiful glow of an engine fire. If you look to the left of the aircraft you will have an unobstructed view of the Vegas lights through the missing door plug. If you look to the front of the aircraft you will see one of our inebriated flight attendants showing our first class passengers the proper twerking techniques. If you direct your attention to the rear of the aircraft you will hear Karen make a scene about the illuminati and peanut allergies. And if you bend over and direct your attention to your butt, you can take this opportunity to kiss it goodbye, because I am on my fifth vodka today."

 

[ilikegunspdx]

There was one great video of some eatery. Shrapnel started flying in and most of the people went for cover. One old guy is sitting there not moving until his hat flies right off his head. That got his attention.

Wow hadn't seen that one before. Skip to 1:30 mark

View: https://youtu.be/WegWfDKXaAY?si=_xPLFh_EcTtJkwjE

 

[WAW44]

That was the first thing I kept thinking before even watching it. They kept saying the Helicopter was supposed to have a ceiling of 200FT. I kept thinking so they think it would be fine if the jet only missed the chopper by 200FT? WTF? Then I kept thinking what would that feel like to the pilots of that thing when a damn commercial jet passes over them only 200ft above them? Amazing this did not happen before now and will keep some lawyers busy for years.

At this point everybody is dancing around the fact that the helo crew, and the Army by extenson, screwed up and killed themselves and 67 other people on US soil. They are looking for excuses on why they screwed up that are stronger than "they were not paying attention when they were supposed to", but that's the conclusion of the investigation.

 

[WAYNO]

That is at this point unfair. We don't know what happened.

 

[WAW44]

That is at this point unfair. We don't know what happened.

Yes we do. NTSB said the collision was at 325 feet, +/- 25ft. That's based of the CRJ's multiple radar altimiters and tower radar returns. The max allowable altitude for the helo was 200ft, and even the ADSB returns that were made public show the helo pinging at 300ft right before the collision. That is based of its transponder ping, or the tower radar, if the helo did not have the transponder altitude returns active. Either way you look at it, the helo was 100ft+ above its max allowed altitude and failed to see & avoid even after confirming to the tower that they had traffic in sight. Sorry, they screwed up. Their altimiter may have been not callibrated, or they lost track, but it's on them.

 

[WillametteWill]

Either way you look at it, the helo was 100ft+ above its max allowed altitude and failed to see & avoid even after confirming to the tower that they had traffic in sight. Sorry, they screwed up. Their altimiter may have been not callibrated, or they lost track, but it's on them.

This is true, but if we as a society of travelers are reliant on a 100-foot cushion between aircraft during landings we are screwed. Typically, my understanding of separation for commercial aircraft is three miles or more if at the same altitude or at least 1,000 feet in altitude. This is usually during level flight, not changing altitudes. I would not feel very comfortable knowing that a Blackhawk soaring 100 feet under my regional jet is acceptable, especially when thousands of feet of separation are required between other aircraft on the runway when landing.

The military crew may have made a mistake, but there are much bigger issues at play here that need to be addressed.

 

[Provincial]

The rotor of the helicopter is probably more than 10 feet above the radar altimeter antenna, and nearly that far above the static port where the regular altimeter gets its input. The landing gear of the CRJ is a similar amount lower, and its tail is almost twice that higher.

I point this out because the altitudes could be somewhat different, while that airframes would still impact each other.

 

[made in china]

The rotor of the helicopter is probably more than 10 feet above the radar altimeter antenna, and nearly that far above the static port where the regular altimeter gets its input. The landing gear of the CRJ is a similar amount lower, and its tail is almost twice that higher.

I point this out because the altitudes could be somewhat different, while that airframes would still impact each other.

CNN has exclusive video that still hasn't shown up all over the Internet, very clear and much closer than the video usually shown, you can see the right wing get blown off and the CRJ immediately rolling over into the river.

They were much closer than landing gear to rotors

 

[Provincial]

My point is that the window of impact is much larger than one would think. In this case it is apparently was not an issue, but the chance of collision is greater than the difference in reported altitude.

The footage you describe would indicate that the helicopter was clearly over half again above its maximum allowed altitude. The check airman was supposed to be making sure that the aircraft was within its assigned altitude and flight path, and he also claimed to have the jet in visual contact. Neither was done.

I saw one ex-military pilot claim that the copilot of the jet was responsible for the accident for not seeing the helicopter. Another ex-military pilot claimed that the helicopter pilot being checked was responsible for not seeing the jet. In fact the helicopter check airman was the one who assured ATC that separation would be maintained. Fingers pointing every which way, and a system that was so poorly structured that a collision was almost inevitable.

 

[Provincial]

Another point. Based on the reported altitude at the point of collision, the jet was above the glide slope (3.1 degrees) guidance of the Visual Approach Slope Indicator lights installed on Runway 33. This proves that even though the jet was near the top of the intended altitude path to the runway, the helicopter flew so far above its assigned maximum altitude that it was still able to collide with a solid blow.

Few realize how much kinetic energy is stored in a helicopter's rotor in flight. It is really like a bomb, and it doesn't surprise me that it destroyed the wing.

 

[WillametteWill]

Another point. Based on the reported altitude at the point of collision, the jet was above the glide slope (3.1 degrees) guidance of the Visual Approach Slope Indicator lights installed on Runway 33. This proves that even though the jet was near the top of the intended altitude path to the runway, the helicopter flew so far above its assigned maximum altitude that it was still able to collide with a solid blow.

All good points, I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but if 1,000 feet of vertical separation is required during level flight at altitude (when it is easier a see objects, there is no visual clutter from the ground lights, and you are not focused on landing an aircraft), then there should NEVER be another aircraft flying below you when you are at or below 1,000 feet AGL.

There is a communication failure when you ask if you see the CRJ. Is it the ONLY one in the sky? It wasn't. You cannot communicate like that, assuming you are thinking and seeing the same CRJ as someone else is, when there are multiple possibilities. There was a lot of 'wrong' in this incident from an airport that has been allowed (forced some say) to have heavier traffic because entitled politicians demand direct flights to their villages, last minute runway changes due to wake turbulence (caused in part by the prior overcrowding), poor communications, apparent understaffing, crowded airspace...this is why bad things happen.

 

[WAW44]

All good points, I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but if 1,000 feet of vertical separation is required during level flight at altitude (when it is easier a see objects, there is no visual clutter from the ground lights, and you are not focused on landing an aircraft), then there should NEVER be another aircraft flying below you when you are at or below 1,000 feet AGL.

There is a communication failure when you ask if you see the CRJ. Is it the ONLY one in the sky? It wasn't. You cannot communicate like that, assuming you are thinking and seeing the same CRJ as someone else is, when there are multiple possibilities. There was a lot of 'wrong' in this incident from an airport that has been allowed (forced some say) to have heavier traffic because entitled politicians demand direct flights to their villages, last minute runway changes due to wake turbulence (caused in part by the prior overcrowding), poor communications, apparent understaffing, crowded airspace...this is why bad things happen.

The helo was high, we agree on that. The check airman was PIC. They, he specifically, are at fault. They failed to maintain altitude discipline , failed to see & avoid, in a known busy airspace. Everything else you mention is an excuse, and none of it would have mattered if the helo crew did what they were supposed to do, as trained aviators.

1000ft separation is all good and comfy, but not when you are in the pattern. Yes, the 100ft separation was insane to begin with, but you can't expect 1000ft around a busy airport. You would slow traffic down to a trickle in pretty much any commercial airport in the nation.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

.

All good points, I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but if 1,000 feet of vertical separation is required during level flight at altitude (when it is easier a see objects, there is no visual clutter from the ground lights, and you are not focused on landing an aircraft), then there should NEVER be another aircraft flying below you when you are at or below 1,000 feet AGL.

There is a communication failure when you ask if you see the CRJ. Is it the ONLY one in the sky? It wasn't. You cannot communicate like that, assuming you are thinking and seeing the same CRJ as someone else is, when there are multiple possibilities. There was a lot of 'wrong' in this incident from an airport that has been allowed (forced some say) to have heavier traffic because entitled politicians demand direct flights to their villages, last minute runway changes due to wake turbulence (caused in part by the prior overcrowding), poor communications, apparent understaffing, crowded airspace...this is why bad things happen.

Don't forget night vision goggles. As Blancolirio said If one wore them they all wore them. Narrow field of view. Four big pillars blocking view. Helicopter flying with nose pitched down blocks view upward due to ceiling. Can they see altimeter with night vision on or do they have to slightly remove them and peek under to see the altimeter? Also a big one do the nvg wash out colors and/or make all lights look similar and impair depth perception? If they can verify nvg were worn that could be a major factor.

 

[made in china]

I wonder if in that area, where supposedly 100' of separation is (was) allowable, if after passing so close, either aircraft could feel jet wash or prop wash turbulence?

 

[WillametteWill]

1000ft separation is all good and comfy, but not when you are in the pattern. Yes, the 100ft separation was insane to begin with, but you can't expect 1000ft around a busy airport. You would slow traffic down to a trickle in pretty much any commercial airport in the nation.

I wonder if in that area, where supposedly 100' of separation is (was) allowable, if after passing so close, either aircraft could feel jet wash or prop wash turbulence?

I can't really picture, even during approach and takeoff from busy airports, that other aircraft should be allowed in the same place within 1,000 feet of altitude. The runways at PDX are 3,000 feet apart. I see aircraft around me all the time when I fly commercial, but they are never passing over/under within 1,000 feet. I've watched small aircraft craft crash due to the prop wash of helos that were in the space many seconds prior. The approach spacing between aircraft at DCA is two minutes from what I saw, which is why they had to change runways. I know the spacing following an A380 is several minutes. The proximity allowed in this area seems insane.

 

[WAW44]

The proximity allowed in this area seems insane.

we agree on this. 100ft was insane, especially if it was known that the Army flew the routes at night, with NVGs.

1000ft would be a bit excssive.

The FAA shut the routes down, hopefully permamently.

 

[Provincial]

Night visual flight is difficult enough in all the urban lighting. Sure, you can tell where the ground is, because of all the lights, but they also make it hard to pick out the traffic when it has the lights in the background. Even the unlit areas can be confusing, as they are often higher and have trees.

Flying low in these conditions is very demanding. Poles, posts, towers, and wires don't show up very well, even when lit. The Blackhawk pilot had her hands full just flying over the river, much less looking for traffic. The check airman called the traffic in sight twice, and was responsible for visual separation, monitoring altitude, radio communications, and monitoring the pilot's performance. He should have been keeping her in the assigned track, too. He was told that the jet would be landing on Runway 33, so the track it would be flying should have been predictable to him. It was going to descend northbound a little east of the river and turn onto the extended centerline of the runway while intercepting the 3.1 degree VASI glideslope. All he had to do was keep the pilot close to the east bank of the river and below 200 feet.

All this points out that relying on visual separation at night in that location is not reasonable, especially when night vision goggles are added to the mix. In fact, it points out that staying within the bounds of the helicopter route was probably too difficult at night for this crew, and perhaps many others.

Arguing that relying on visual separation is the only way to avoid congestion there is necessary raises the question of how to revise procedures to ensure that visual separation is ensured. In this case, it wasn't.

Why isn't the airspace in and under the final approach course "sanitized" when it is occupied by landing traffic? As everyone knows this is a critical phase of flight, and the crew needs to be able to focus on flying the airplane to landing, instead of dodging traffic. Staging transiting traffic to keep the final approach course clear shouldn't be congestive, if those involved plan ahead.

One of my pet peeves is that the ATC system works on a "need to know" basis that makes it difficult for flight crews to predict future directions. Even though there are established procedures, deviations happen pretty often, and flight crews have little information about the location and flight path of other traffic. For instance, in this case the controller asked the jet to change over to Runway 33 to expedite traffic, and the crew accepted that change out of courtesy and smooth traffic flow. A crew that had less experience with these particular might be overloaded by that late request.

When I started flying in the 1970's the Air Traffic Control system was rickety and overloaded. It has never fully caught up with the increase in air traffic. The mentality at ATC is such that it never will, unless they change. The concept of "positive control" has been outgrown, and with new technology and a fresh look we can involve aircrews in avoiding conflicts.

There is a scandal in ATC hiring that is about to blow up in court. Correcting that might eventually ease the shortage of controllers, but the system has fallen behind the current capacity.